User talk:Nyttend: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:24, 27 October 2011

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Re: Illustrations of Pennsylvania municipalities

Nope. Not me. You must be thinking of someone else. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP NRHP in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is scheduled to be published October 17, so we have a couple weeks. It looks like this will be an exciting interview. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#View by User:Nyttend

Hi Nyttend. Please reconsider your comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#View by User:Nyttend: "Why aren't there any "View by ___" sections for actual users?" There was a "View by User:Example" below your added view. See your edit, in which you edited the "View by User:Example" section. Please strike out the incorrect sentence in your statement. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PA municipality pictures

I do not know of a formal list, but Gerry D may (formerly Dincher). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also check with User:Smallbones Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long term and maybe impossible goal, but there is no list that I know of. Gerry D (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk

I don't know if you are aware, but i created the article for Rihanna's new album about 2 weeks ago. It was nominated for deletion, and the long awaited outcome was Incubate. I nominated the current one for Speedy Deletion per the Incubate of the one I created. I worked hard on that article about 25 people was involved with the Afd. By having this one open (which has considerably less info than the one in the incubator i created at the moment) completely undoes all that happened on the AfD for the one I created and would have wasted everyones time. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I nominated it when it only had a one sentence long lead. There was NO background info. And I haven't edited in the sense of improving, all I did was two reverts to restore the deletion tag. I'm sorry, but I want the one in the incubator to be the article used, otherwise it undermines everything that people got involved for in order to result in being incubated. Plus, this article is smaller than the one in the incubator, so someone would nominate to be deleted within the next few hours. An IP user, who clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about, removed the tag. I am perfectly justified in those two reverts for the tag to stay there. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not showing off my own work, it's undermining the thoughts and opinions of 25 other editors who came to a consensus that the article I created be incubated, which it is! The one i created is a lot more information than this one, so what makes you think this is one is worthy of remaining? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request completed

Hello, Nyttend. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Gauravjuvekar (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inland lighthouses

We've actually got another in Nebraska: Lake Minatare Lighthouse in Scotts Bluff County. Unfortunately, it was cloudy and gloomy the day I was there, so no photos. Ammodramus (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Victor Pascall

On 8 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victor Pascall, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Victor Pascall of Trinidad was considered the best left-arm spinner in West Indies cricket during his career? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Pascall. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First United

Well, a big red rectangular building, with a bell tower that looks like an observation tower old firehouses used to have... And yes, with a real fire station in the same street for comparison, one could not help wondering if the church builders were inspired by the best examples of the firehouse architecture :-)

I should stop by the B-ton Museum & Archives some day... --

Vmenkov (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011

Paul Shoup House

Thanks for your comments on this page. The addition of the page to Wiki is my first contribution. My grandfather was a general contractor at the turn of the century (over a 100 years ago, hard to believe !), and he has several buildings he built on the NRHP. The Paul Shoup House is a home in my community, so I started with what I know. I may be interested in doing more for the wikiprojects you mention, currently I'm researching Paul Shoup's son, Carl Sumner Shoup - that will likely be my next Bio on Wiki. Wjenning (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more comment - the wiki article Paul Shoup House needs review, as it's a new article, and I'm new to this process. Can you suggest how I can get this done? thanks again, Bill Wjenning (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help on the Paul Shoup House - I am learning about the proper style, tense, formatting, etc. : wanted to get this one in Wiki, as it's the first house in the city for the listing. thanks again, Bill Wjenning (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've sorted out what happened just right - I miaread what the infobox meant, and undid it once I researched why it looked wrong when I typed it in. There is a lot to this wikipedia stuff... thank goodness the community is understanding and supportive. Wjenning (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed later today that the "Criteria B" reference was deleted on the house by another editor. I don't know the proper etiquette about this : should I let the edit go, contact the editor that deleted it, or what? You're recommending that we include it (and I thought it made sense: as the key part about the houses NRHP application was about Paul Shoup, not the architecture: especially since all I can not yet confirm who the original architect was on the house). Your advice appreciated. Wjenning (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice to keep the intro short, and indicate the reason for the National Register application later. Feels like this info belongs in the Infobox: IE, the criteria for the nomination. I can only imagine that adding a field to an Infobox would be long and tedious as it impacts so many pages... Wjenning (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP photo contest

I loved the fish cabins comment. I posted a draft of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest. I'd love to see any comments about that page, just to make sure that it is easily understandable, and that the contest would be workable. Any more help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas and Dakotas comment was just off the top of my head, nothing serious. The AR "rule" is just to keep any side-issue controversies at a minimum, if you want to sponsor a challenge that includes AR sites, please go ahead. The timing of this is about the only thing related to the Signpost - if it can get some free publicity, why not? BTW, it looks like the article will run next Monday. My major concern is whether I'll get stuck counting 4,000 diffs, or in general will the contest work well as written. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy bot

The bot task to look for new policies only runs once a day. If someone makes a change that is promptly reverted, the bot is unlikely to notice it, which is OK because the situation would already be resolved. The goal of the messages is for pages that are marked and stay that way without anyone noticing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The code for this particular task is not very bright. It just compares the pages that are marked when it runs with the pages that were marked last time it ran. The goal is just to make sure that if a page does stay marked until the next bot run, it gets announced, so people know to look into it. For that purpose it doesn't matter whether the page was marked 5 minutes or 5 hours before the bot ran. If there were an overwhelming number of notices I would try to find a way to reduce them, but at the moment I think they are not too common. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scipione

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Insulting

This edit contains some rather offensive material, and is nothing but disruptive; may qualify for removal. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe1992 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moapa, Nevada

Hi, if you would follow the link to Unincorporated towns in Nevada, you would see that towns like Moapa are actually defined entities, not "my opinion of what a community is". The fact is that Moapa is both an unincorporated town and a census-designated place, but the fact that it is an unincorporated town actually has something to do with the how the town is defined and governed, unlike the CDP designation which is purely for statistical purposes. So I think it's more appropriate to refer to it as a town in the lead, rather than a CDP.

Also, if you look at secondary sources like Google News Archives, you'll see that the town is referred to as "Moapa" not "Moapa Town". So regardless of whether "we write about CDPs", WP:COMMONNAME clearly indicates that the article should be at Moapa, Nevada. Toohool (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Creek Site

Note that "Prairie Creek D" is a common term. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoresh disambiguation deletion

Hey there, how come you deleted the disambiguation page as unnecessary? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, guess I see that. I suppose I could put one of those did you mean x things at the top of Shoresh that has a link to semitic root (a much more common use than that tiny moshav). Errr... Do you know the template for that by chance? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, one of those. Thanks. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 02:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THanks

I was just getting to that (as noted on TZ master's page). They were simple copy/pastes I tagged - no additional content at time I was tagging until I kept reiterating they were exact duplicates other than the starting couple words. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do have to ask... shouldnt the numerous dupes be redirects instead? That was the whole reason of the A10 tag. They are (the ones I tagged) exact dupes. Or perhaps you can advise TZ to use the underconstruction or inuse or major tags? Or do one at a time? A dozen dupes at a time? While creating more? I think the goal of expansion and individual articles is great... a dozen+ dupes, not so much. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

1 Wrong tag — Status {^talk_contribs 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Twinkle is tagging it with the wrong one. :/ Weird. — Status {^talk_contribs 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting images without preserving history

Hi. I noticed you deleted File:Pulpandbroach.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I also notice it was inexpertly transferred to Commons by the uploader there and didn't show any of the file history. While sometimes you can get away with this, it may cause one of the following problems:

It doesn't properly preserve the history of some contributions, which may cause licensing problems of our own (in this case, User:The Pink Oboe made an upload that is now completely unattributed; had this been marked GFDL or CC, it would be a copyright violation).
No preservation of the history may cause problems even where it looks like it might not. An example is a public domain painting: some countries (e.g., France) allow for an entity that makes even a slavish reproduction of the image to hold a copyright on it; this information is important for users in France who wish to reuse content from Wikipedia. I recently had precisely this type of issue brought up on my talk page: User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 16#Uploader information (although I was innocent of the claimed mistake!). Another example could be where an uploader gives the website where s/he originally got the image, but may have made edits before uploading to Wikipedia.
It doesn't preserve any of the dates of upload, which may be useful for dating third party images like text logos or US armed forces files.
It doesn't preserve the upload date, which will matter some day for when the item falls into the public domain by means of age
Depending on the situation, it makes it more difficult to track its usage on Wikipedia (and thus, to give the image a proper context, or - occasionally - track featured picture information).
If there are copyright question, it may make it difficult to track down the original uploader for an explanation.

As such, I'll ask that, in the future, you could make sure to either copy the original upload log (e.g., with CommonsHelper) to the new file before deleting, or that you make a proximate attempt (e.g., copying the file name, upload date and uploader history in your browser and pasting it in <nowiki> tags). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what you've said; however, there's no legal requirement to preserve the upload history or Commons requirement, since the GFDL/CC licenses don't require upload histories (and this is PD-self, so no legal requirement to do anything), and as such, the only legal requirement is that the author(s) be credited. I'm aware that it's common practice to give the upload history, so I never remove it from where it's already present (unless the image is a modification of something that I'd uploaded, since I'm free to waive anything of my rights), but there's no huge issue here. We have author credit and source statement, which fulfills Commons policies for all types of images and would fulfill the legal requirements of GFDL/CC licenses, and the original image said nothing about the date. By the way, you're wrong about The Pink Oboe being ignored; check the two upload summaries for the image, and you'll see that s/he was credited as the creator of the modified version. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, I just spent like 2 minutes writing a bot to do it anyway. It's here: [1]. It's quicker than CommonsHelper, and hopefully more reliable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

nableezy - 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nyttend! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Comparison of types of hang gliders

Hi. I see that you have removed my speedy deletion request from Template:Comparison of types of hang gliders on the grounds that it isn't a redirect from main article space. I think that while maybe technically correct it was a bit hasty. I say technically correct because the only explanation I can think of for this is the fact that there is no article that references this template yet. Is this your thinking?

My reason for the deletion request was that although it isn't used in a main space article yet, it was clearly intended to be so used. The creator has just been banned from all further editing on this topic (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joefaust) so even if it doesn't merit deletion for the reason I gave it should still be deleted as part of a tidy up from this.

Perhaps you could reconsider, or if not then please take/suggest a further course of action to get the template removed.

Thanks Jontyla (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the reason that one may not redirect main pages to user pages is because the rules for editing user pages are rather different from those for the main pages. However, if instead of having a main page M redirecting to a user page U (forbidden) you have M containing a template T which is redirected to U then surely you achieve roughly the same effect? I assumed that this was what the creator was intending and that this was also was forbidden, hence the tag.

There are existing templates that redirect to user space, but the ones I looked at are designed for use in user pages and thus don't have this problem.

If I'm not wrong about this then the articles about this speedy delete case may need updating to clarify things. Jontyla (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 Thanks [[User:Jontyla|Jontyla]] ([[User talk:Jontyla|talk]]) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
+:I assume that the reason that one may not redirect main pages to user pages is because the rules for editing user pages are rather different from those for the main pages. However, if instead of having a main page M redirecting to a user page U (forbidden) you have M containing a template T which is redirected to U then surely you achieve roughly the same effect? I assumed that this was what the creator was intending and that this was also was forbidden, hence the tag.
+:There are existing templates that redirect to user space, but the ones I looked at are designed for use in user pages and thus don't have this problem.
+:If I'm not wrong about this then the articles about this speedy delete case may need updating to clarify  things. [[User:Jontyla|Jontyla]] ([[User talk:Jontyla|talk]]) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)